Recent Headlines

The issue in the proposed change to the anti-discrimination ordinance is not so much about homosexuality or religion, but about free speech.

On the latter subject, we had the commentary by the Rev. Kelly S. Allen of University Presbyterian Church (“Christians treat others as valued neighbors,” Other Views, Monday), who says that language protecting from prosecution those who act out of religious belief — the “religious exemption” — is in the ordinance. Yet in the Sunday edition, we had Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller (“Are we left to choose law or faith?”) stating that, according to city officials, that same language is merely implied in the ordinance.

I am sorry, but that is not good enough. I have no plans to discriminate against homosexuals because I have better things to do with my time; nor do I have plans to enter politics or engage in other dealings with the city because politics is just not ready for me. However, confusion over what this ordinance does or does not say will automatically have a “chilling effect” on believers wishing to exercise their rights to participate in representative government under the U.S. Constitution, as people will likely pull back rather than risk stepping on toes, potential lawsuits, etc., regardless of intent. And even if, as the Rev. Allen says, the ordinance is limited to dealings with the city, could it be interpreted — perhaps not now, but under another council — to be extended to private businesses and other areas as well?

So here is what I propose:

First, it would be most helpful if the Express-News published the text of the proposed changes, both in its original and amended form (dealing with the “in word or deed” phrase).

Second, a vote on this amendment should be delayed until a town hall meeting can be arranged where all parties of interest have a chance to speak to council members regarding the implications of the amendment and strong religious exemption language can be reinforced.

As it stands now, if the amendment is passed, surely lawsuits will be the result, which will tie up its implementation for months, possibly years, and likely end up with one federal court or another ruling that it needs to be rewritten anyway. This will lead to even more polarization among citizens than already exists.

So why don't we all just sit down, talk it over and do this right ... the first time?